One thing to add about the Path of Exile comparison is that the designers of DnD 3.5 purposely did something similar. Look up Monte Cooke and Ivory Tower Design to learn about it; 3.5's obtuse discrepancy between the power of feats wasn't just a by product, it was intentional design. It's also one of the reasons you could see that struggle throughout 1e's lifespan; Paizo was clearly not a fan of it, but the inherent chassis just swung that way. Personally I've always despised that kind of design. I see no virtue in arbitrarily making bad options just to make power gamers feel good about figuring out the right ones. Having high power options is perfectly fine if that's part of the game design, but that's different to purposely subpar options. It's kind of why I fell out with MtG too; I got sick of drawing Timmy cards in boosters and needing to pay an arm and a leg for Spike cards. I realise it's not inherently wrong, but I think it appeals to a very specific kind of person. I'm kind of a mechanical eugnicist in that if something doesn't serve a purpose, I don't think it should be in the game. I'd much rather things have an actual purpose than just be there to make players feel good for not picking them. That's why I think 2e's design is genius and I have a lot of respect for it.
Ooh, this came out at a really good time for me. I'm starting a homebrew campaign with a bunch of people who've never played PF2e before, but have a lot of 5e experience. Your points about how its design philosophy differs from D&D5e, how to build a solid character, and how certain rules weren't well explained are just what I needed.
Modularity it's one of the things that I most love about pathfinder 2e design. With their enfasis on this I can more safely create homebrews that I don't feel will heavily impact many systens of the game, so it's less probable that I'll break it
My one issue with PF both 1e & 2e, that I really like in 5e is how choosing spells works. Choosing spells for each “slot” has always presented a sense of analysis paralysis that just doesn’t need to be there. I much prefer 5e’s system of selecting known spells and being able to use any of them up to your spell slot allocation for that level of slot. It’s the ONLY thing holding my group back from genuinely wanting to move our current campaign to 2e.
I'm starting to get more of a shine on PF2e over D&D despite DM'ing a game of Dindy, but yea, what I like to call bullet casting feels a little antiquated in current year. It makes for technically more strategic gameplay, which people have brought up, but I feel like there's more that could be done to achieve something similar.
“PF2 aims for realism” until it specifically and intentionally doesn’t, like in the cases of feats that allow master and legendary characters to walk on water or breathe in outer space. And I love that. You are in a world of mythic heroes like Beowulf who could swim across monster filled seas, cuz he is a legend. You normally need a narrative reason to break reality, which is perfect for a fantasy game. The sole exception to this is the medicine skill allowing for characters to heal up in an hour, but I am fine with this ludonarrative dissonance.
Another great video! I think it's interesting to see what the designers thought when making the system, even if I'm not versed into game design. One thing I quite like is the integration of skills in the "power budget" of the character, as going from expert to master or master to legendary is really significant and a choice that reflects into the character. Sure, a Barbarian will favor Athletics and a Wizard Arcana, but they have other skills to worry about that are meaningful choices for what they can do. What could be better? Gripe #3: the Chirurgeon Alchemist :'(
Well done, I enjoyed your comparison to videogames, if only for a frame of reference for what trpg's are fundamentally accomplishing that's different from videogames. A huge plus of pathfinder right now is the balance. In 5e, you're constantly looking for builds that break the game. And, you find plenty. PF2e theory crafting is frustrating if that's what you're looking for, even if you free archetype, because the game does a good job of gating power appropriately. My biggest gripe with PF2e is a not well explained upgrade system. If you're new to trpgs or come from 5e, the system isn't explicit about the upgrade path for weapons and armor and runes, namely that's it's core to the leveling experience. Once you have that in your mind, the videogame connection clicks, but they don't make a ton of effort communicating that it's basically essential to do this
Thank you for the dive on the topic. As someone who has played/run DW, PF1 and every edition of D&D (including B/E/X), your comparison of rules-light/medium/heavy systems was quite informative. You make many valid points regarding PF2, but I respectfully disagree with a few points. I agree with you that PF2 has a dizzying array of choices for PC development, and that's the problem as it lends itself to 'choice paralysis' or 'overchoice' - a situation where one has too many options which all appear of near-equal value and the person has no clear path forward. This, combined with the formidable size/weight of the CRB and the overall complexity of the system (despite being more streamlined than PF1, we're still talking rules-heavy) and the system has created a barrier to play nearly equal to that of 3X/PF1 in a time when 'the other big system' made pains for easy entry for new players. I agree with you that there are multiple 'builds' for each class and sub-class (however you want to call them), but there ARE some which are supported more fully and/or function better than others. There are also a few which are cheese/OP standouts (I'm looking at you, flickmace fighter). Given your earlier video about proficiency tracks and some other stuff, it _seems_ that full-casters are mechanically disadvantaged vs. full-martials. Just my tuppence. Thank you again for the thoughtful video.
Full casters are undoubtedly at a disadvantage from a numerical standpoint. However, it's impossible to quantify the increase in choice and versatility that casters have over martials. A purely mathematical analysis will always fall short.
@@1dm564 I can see that to a certain extent. The trouble I see with casters is that they have to expend resources (spell slots) to match/exceed the capabilities of martials who can, in Cap's words, "Do this all day".
Great video! I agree that the first gripe has no easy fix, but there are some possible ones that could be worth it (some of which you mentionned). 1. A feat for each proficiency. Pros: easy to implement, balanced. Con: a bit clunky. 2. "Leveling" feats. The first feat could move to later general feat slots when it provides the higher proficiency. For example a 3rd level general feat could advanced to 7th level when you get to level 7, and you'd fill the 3rd level slot with a new feat of your choice. Pro: doesn't fill multiple slots, balanced. Con: requires a new system which takes learning. 3. Having the feat's proficiency scale with your class-granted proficiencies. Pros: easy and effective. Con: might not be balanced.
The first two solutions you propose have a problem, which is that armor/weapon proficiency increases don't necessarily line up with general feats, so there will always be windows where the optimal thing to do would be to go back a step in armor weight or weapon complexity to increase AC and hit chance respectively. Even ignoring that, I feel like the second option conflicts with feat retraining, making one system or the other redundant. The third option, like you said, is a bit overpowered. I think the best option is to have scaling proficiencies in archetypes, while keeping the general feats as options for those who might not have the feats to spare to dip into an archetype. To be honest though, I think this is mostly a non-issue. If sacrificing a proficiency step for more damage or more options was universally bad, then advanced weapons and barbarians wouldn't exist. Armor class scales linearly and doesn't have this sort of trade-off, but by level 13 you will have had 2 opportunities to increase Dex and make lighter armor just as good as your previous armor. Overall, I would say that all this makes these feats clunky, but not bad, especially given the opportunity to retrain them.
@@robinbernardinis I am hoping to run 2e at some point with my playgroup and I thought that the idea of non-class armors getting no additional proficiency was... Odd. So I will be trying to work in proficiency as a mini-reward. Say one of my players is a Ranger and he takes varient heritage for a 1st level general feat taking armor proficiency for heavy armor. As he uses that heavy armor (which I would consider him training with) I might have him gain proficiency with that armor as he progresses as if it was his trained armor. Of course this is all something I would have to play around and figure out if it causes any unbalance.
11:03 It depends pretty heavily on the GM and the group you're running it with in my experience. I have an uncompleted game where we were playing mercenaries in a guild of assassins and someone was trying to get rid of us. A politician was speaking out against us and seemed to be getting a lot of support but he didn't seem to be the one actually coordinating the attacks, so we quietly (except me as I was the distraction) kidnapped this politician and planned to make our own copy of him with a ritual so we could find out who was contacting him and who may have been behind these attacks. If we're talking strategic in battle then I also disagree. There are some people who look at Dungeon World's class moves and just say "yeah I'll do this" but the point of DW to me is freedom. You have the freedom to use the surroundings to your advantage, the freedom to run away if you aren't going to win the battle (because you only get 1 XP if you beat a memorable enemy). So not all people do things tactically but if you do you can beat a lot more enemies in battle in my experience with DW.
My personal opinion is that the Weapon and Armor Proficiency general feats should have either been buffed or removed. It's worth noting that they can be retrained, so a 'short lived' feat choice can be replaced. Also, the sentinel archetype has options for better armored characters.
Yeah, retraining makes them less awkward to use as they're not necessarily a waste at higher levels. But retraining should never feel necessary to use because a feat became *obsolete.* It should only exist for players who have changed their minds.
Great video. I do disagree with the sentiment that there are a good variety of well balanced options in character building though. I feel P2 is still a lot like P1. Where, of the feat choices available at a given level, only around 20% of them are actually worth considering if you're trying to pick something that will actually be effective or relevant to the game. This varies from class to class of course. Some are better than others to be sure. But I was hoping for more. At least the feat list isn't miles long in P2.
Good video and I mostly agree with the points you made. I would argue that in balancing casters with martials , they took some of the “magic” away from those characters. The fact that magic users do not have items they can use to bolster their attacks while martials have many doesn’t help.
Casters got some good items in secrets of magic for that, e.g. one allowing them to target their choice of fortitude or reflex DC instead of AC for targeted spells
Yea the more time pass from this vid the more we see they didnt match any of those Philosophies. There is no rule 0, but there is a class that dose X better then any other class who can try to do X. So no "many balanced options". Player choice is fake, many Feats are fake feats, the more you play you learn most of them are bad. The only true thing is clear rulings. Choices then dont matter, there are 4 to 5 classes that do X the best, that is all. And its not modulare if you got fake choices, you can make many many shittiy tanks, that is nice, but they are all shitty, only one is good. Making so that this many options are all trap options like the Tower Philosophy.
One thing to add about the Path of Exile comparison is that the designers of DnD 3.5 purposely did something similar. Look up Monte Cooke and Ivory Tower Design to learn about it; 3.5's obtuse discrepancy between the power of feats wasn't just a by product, it was intentional design. It's also one of the reasons you could see that struggle throughout 1e's lifespan; Paizo was clearly not a fan of it, but the inherent chassis just swung that way.
Personally I've always despised that kind of design. I see no virtue in arbitrarily making bad options just to make power gamers feel good about figuring out the right ones. Having high power options is perfectly fine if that's part of the game design, but that's different to purposely subpar options. It's kind of why I fell out with MtG too; I got sick of drawing Timmy cards in boosters and needing to pay an arm and a leg for Spike cards.
I realise it's not inherently wrong, but I think it appeals to a very specific kind of person. I'm kind of a mechanical eugnicist in that if something doesn't serve a purpose, I don't think it should be in the game. I'd much rather things have an actual purpose than just be there to make players feel good for not picking them. That's why I think 2e's design is genius and I have a lot of respect for it.
Ooh, this came out at a really good time for me. I'm starting a homebrew campaign with a bunch of people who've never played PF2e before, but have a lot of 5e experience. Your points about how its design philosophy differs from D&D5e, how to build a solid character, and how certain rules weren't well explained are just what I needed.
Very glad I could help!
Modularity it's one of the things that I most love about pathfinder 2e design. With their enfasis on this I can more safely create homebrews that I don't feel will heavily impact many systens of the game, so it's less probable that I'll break it
This is now Another niche that PF2e has needed creators for.
Give us that number crunch
My one issue with PF both 1e & 2e, that I really like in 5e is how choosing spells works. Choosing spells for each “slot” has always presented a sense of analysis paralysis that just doesn’t need to be there. I much prefer 5e’s system of selecting known spells and being able to use any of them up to your spell slot allocation for that level of slot. It’s the ONLY thing holding my group back from genuinely wanting to move our current campaign to 2e.
I'm starting to get more of a shine on PF2e over D&D despite DM'ing a game of Dindy, but yea, what I like to call bullet casting feels a little antiquated in current year. It makes for technically more strategic gameplay, which people have brought up, but I feel like there's more that could be done to achieve something similar.
“PF2 aims for realism” until it specifically and intentionally doesn’t, like in the cases of feats that allow master and legendary characters to walk on water or breathe in outer space. And I love that. You are in a world of mythic heroes like Beowulf who could swim across monster filled seas, cuz he is a legend. You normally need a narrative reason to break reality, which is perfect for a fantasy game. The sole exception to this is the medicine skill allowing for characters to heal up in an hour, but I am fine with this ludonarrative dissonance.
I think the point is "Realism within a fantasy setting."
Another great video! I think it's interesting to see what the designers thought when making the system, even if I'm not versed into game design. One thing I quite like is the integration of skills in the "power budget" of the character, as going from expert to master or master to legendary is really significant and a choice that reflects into the character. Sure, a Barbarian will favor Athletics and a Wizard Arcana, but they have other skills to worry about that are meaningful choices for what they can do.
What could be better? Gripe #3: the Chirurgeon Alchemist :'(
At least the chirurgeon alchemist does something, I head the mutagenist is even worse
Loving the frequent uploads
I definitely didn't take almost 3 weeks to upload this one...oops. Glad you enjoy it thought!
Well done, I enjoyed your comparison to videogames, if only for a frame of reference for what trpg's are fundamentally accomplishing that's different from videogames. A huge plus of pathfinder right now is the balance. In 5e, you're constantly looking for builds that break the game. And, you find plenty. PF2e theory crafting is frustrating if that's what you're looking for, even if you free archetype, because the game does a good job of gating power appropriately. My biggest gripe with PF2e is a not well explained upgrade system. If you're new to trpgs or come from 5e, the system isn't explicit about the upgrade path for weapons and armor and runes, namely that's it's core to the leveling experience. Once you have that in your mind, the videogame connection clicks, but they don't make a ton of effort communicating that it's basically essential to do this
As a player and DM of 5e and someone who has read through 2e I totally agree with that opinion. (12:20)
love your videos awesome you're doing this
Thank you!
Thank you for the dive on the topic. As someone who has played/run DW, PF1 and every edition of D&D (including B/E/X), your comparison of rules-light/medium/heavy systems was quite informative. You make many valid points regarding PF2, but I respectfully disagree with a few points.
I agree with you that PF2 has a dizzying array of choices for PC development, and that's the problem as it lends itself to 'choice paralysis' or 'overchoice' - a situation where one has too many options which all appear of near-equal value and the person has no clear path forward. This, combined with the formidable size/weight of the CRB and the overall complexity of the system (despite being more streamlined than PF1, we're still talking rules-heavy) and the system has created a barrier to play nearly equal to that of 3X/PF1 in a time when 'the other big system' made pains for easy entry for new players.
I agree with you that there are multiple 'builds' for each class and sub-class (however you want to call them), but there ARE some which are supported more fully and/or function better than others. There are also a few which are cheese/OP standouts (I'm looking at you, flickmace fighter). Given your earlier video about proficiency tracks and some other stuff, it _seems_ that full-casters are mechanically disadvantaged vs. full-martials. Just my tuppence.
Thank you again for the thoughtful video.
Full casters are undoubtedly at a disadvantage from a numerical standpoint. However, it's impossible to quantify the increase in choice and versatility that casters have over martials. A purely mathematical analysis will always fall short.
@@1dm564 I can see that to a certain extent. The trouble I see with casters is that they have to expend resources (spell slots) to match/exceed the capabilities of martials who can, in Cap's words, "Do this all day".
Great video! I agree that the first gripe has no easy fix, but there are some possible ones that could be worth it (some of which you mentionned).
1. A feat for each proficiency. Pros: easy to implement, balanced. Con: a bit clunky.
2. "Leveling" feats. The first feat could move to later general feat slots when it provides the higher proficiency. For example a 3rd level general feat could advanced to 7th level when you get to level 7, and you'd fill the 3rd level slot with a new feat of your choice. Pro: doesn't fill multiple slots, balanced. Con: requires a new system which takes learning.
3. Having the feat's proficiency scale with your class-granted proficiencies. Pros: easy and effective. Con: might not be balanced.
The first two solutions you propose have a problem, which is that armor/weapon proficiency increases don't necessarily line up with general feats, so there will always be windows where the optimal thing to do would be to go back a step in armor weight or weapon complexity to increase AC and hit chance respectively.
Even ignoring that, I feel like the second option conflicts with feat retraining, making one system or the other redundant.
The third option, like you said, is a bit overpowered. I think the best option is to have scaling proficiencies in archetypes, while keeping the general feats as options for those who might not have the feats to spare to dip into an archetype.
To be honest though, I think this is mostly a non-issue. If sacrificing a proficiency step for more damage or more options was universally bad, then advanced weapons and barbarians wouldn't exist. Armor class scales linearly and doesn't have this sort of trade-off, but by level 13 you will have had 2 opportunities to increase Dex and make lighter armor just as good as your previous armor. Overall, I would say that all this makes these feats clunky, but not bad, especially given the opportunity to retrain them.
@@robinbernardinis I am hoping to run 2e at some point with my playgroup and I thought that the idea of non-class armors getting no additional proficiency was... Odd. So I will be trying to work in proficiency as a mini-reward.
Say one of my players is a Ranger and he takes varient heritage for a 1st level general feat taking armor proficiency for heavy armor. As he uses that heavy armor (which I would consider him training with) I might have him gain proficiency with that armor as he progresses as if it was his trained armor.
Of course this is all something I would have to play around and figure out if it causes any unbalance.
Keep up the good work 👍
This an excellent analysis of PF2E's design pillars that has I could intuit but had a difficult way of structuring into a proper viewpoint.
11:03 It depends pretty heavily on the GM and the group you're running it with in my experience. I have an uncompleted game where we were playing mercenaries in a guild of assassins and someone was trying to get rid of us. A politician was speaking out against us and seemed to be getting a lot of support but he didn't seem to be the one actually coordinating the attacks, so we quietly (except me as I was the distraction) kidnapped this politician and planned to make our own copy of him with a ritual so we could find out who was contacting him and who may have been behind these attacks. If we're talking strategic in battle then I also disagree. There are some people who look at Dungeon World's class moves and just say "yeah I'll do this" but the point of DW to me is freedom. You have the freedom to use the surroundings to your advantage, the freedom to run away if you aren't going to win the battle (because you only get 1 XP if you beat a memorable enemy). So not all people do things tactically but if you do you can beat a lot more enemies in battle in my experience with DW.
I think they could have done warpriest better, it's definitely one of those options that's good at low levels but doesn't keep up with proficiencies.
My personal opinion is that the Weapon and Armor Proficiency general feats should have either been buffed or removed. It's worth noting that they can be retrained, so a 'short lived' feat choice can be replaced.
Also, the sentinel archetype has options for better armored characters.
Yeah, retraining makes them less awkward to use as they're not necessarily a waste at higher levels. But retraining should never feel necessary to use because a feat became *obsolete.* It should only exist for players who have changed their minds.
Love your videos thank you for uploading!
Great video. I do disagree with the sentiment that there are a good variety of well balanced options in character building though. I feel P2 is still a lot like P1. Where, of the feat choices available at a given level, only around 20% of them are actually worth considering if you're trying to pick something that will actually be effective or relevant to the game.
This varies from class to class of course. Some are better than others to be sure. But I was hoping for more. At least the feat list isn't miles long in P2.
i love path finder but i think it should state the rule of cool in some situations.
8:09 Let me know if you want to collab and use my math to talk about character combos and how it's progressed. :)
I would not call OOP "modular", as it usually includes impure in-the-back state modification. Functional is much more modular.
Good video and I mostly agree with the points you made. I would argue that in balancing casters with martials , they took some of the “magic” away from those characters. The fact that magic users do not have items they can use to bolster their attacks while martials have many doesn’t help.
That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that!
Further to that, making +x weapons roll more dice helps weapon damage scale with spell damage.
Casters got some good items in secrets of magic for that, e.g. one allowing them to target their choice of fortitude or reflex DC instead of AC for targeted spells
Love your comparison to Path of Exile haha
Oh hai there! I love your app!
"Stragegic gameplay" @7:50
agree with everything... especially with your closing points of things that could be better
Yea the more time pass from this vid the more we see they didnt match any of those Philosophies. There is no rule 0, but there is a class that dose X better then any other class who can try to do X. So no "many balanced options".
Player choice is fake, many Feats are fake feats, the more you play you learn most of them are bad. The only true thing is clear rulings. Choices then dont matter, there are 4 to 5 classes that do X the best, that is all. And its not modulare if you got fake choices, you can make many many shittiy tanks, that is nice, but they are all shitty, only one is good. Making so that this many options are all trap options like the Tower Philosophy.